Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
HiSo what? The French interest preceded their order (in spite of one of the French purchasing agents dying in a prototype crash while illegally onboard). It was in fact the French interest which caused the US and British to take another look.
Hi
I think you will find that the French officer, Capt. Maurice Chemidlin, survived the crash badly injured. It was the Douglas pilot, John Cable, who was killed. The pilot was demonstrating the aircraft's engine-out capability when the running engine failed.
The prototype and what it was originally going to look like:
View attachment 854854
It was redesigned after the crash.
Mike
Not true. Fighter bombers with external loads could only operate fully effectively where escorted and/or where air supremacy or at least superiority had been achieved. Escorting fighters also often faced exactly the same difficulty that they did escorting standard bombers - the speed difference due to the drag of external ordinance and carriage devices was significant.he Mustangs and Apaches illustrate this point perfectly. You can add bombs for ground attack, or big fuel tanks for long range escort, without slowing the planes to the point that the enemy can manage them.
You are missing my point. They installed bombs, rockets, and 40mm cannons onto Hawker Hurricanes. These aircraft required escort even without stuff hanging off of them. A P51 Mustang could be encumbered up a point, and still be difficult to intercept. Mustangs and some other aircraft were versatile because they had a gross performance advantage. That advantage could be compromised by bombs or whatever, and the aircraft would still have the advantage. Obviously, this puts an upper limit on your unescorted bomb load.Not true. Fighter bombers with external loads could only operate fully effectively where escorted and/or where air supremacy or at least superiority had been achieved. Escorting fighters also often faced exactly the same difficulty that they did escorting standard bombers - the speed difference due to the drag of external ordinance and carriage devices was significant.
Not true. Fighter bombers with external loads could only operate fully effectively where escorted and/or where air supremacy or at least superiority had been achieved. Escorting fighters also often faced exactly the same difficulty that they did escorting standard bombers - the speed difference due to the drag of external ordinance and carriage devices was significant.
You are missing my point. They installed bombs, rockets, and 40mm cannons onto Hawker Hurricanes. These aircraft required escort even without stuff hanging off of them. A P51 Mustang could be encumbered up a point, and still be difficult to intercept. Mustangs and some other aircraft were versatile because they had a gross performance advantage. That advantage could be compromised by bombs or whatever, and the aircraft would still have the advantage. Obviously, this puts an upper limit on your unescorted bomb load.
As I understand, not 'routinely' without established air superiority - and not 'routinely' (if that had not been established), without escort against interception. A minor (in terms of raids and numbers deployed) exception would be the FW190 'tip and run raids' of the south east coast of the UK - but which were little more than nuisance operations. Later on, daylight precision Mosquito FB deep raids into occupied territory happened, but again, they were highly planned operations and very much not routine - and when they happened, even then, it was often with some kind of long range escort. If you know otherwise, I'd be interested to where you've picked that up - because in all my years of reading, described fighter bomber missions are usually mid to late war, most seem to describe the importance of coordination with escort fighters.Those A-36s, as well as P-40s, Fw 190s, Mosquitos and a lot of other fighter-bombers routinely operated without escorts in very high threat areas. Interception would usually mean they had to prematurely jettison their bombs, but not necessarily that they would be massacred.
The A-36s in particular had a very high cruising speed which makes them harder to intercept and to identify in time to arrange intereception. Also helps against flak.
I'm not convinced by that claim. What contemporary Luftwaffe interceptors did a Mustang carrying 2 x 500lbs 'still have the advantage' over in either speed, turn, or climb...?You are missing my point. They installed bombs, rockets, and 40mm cannons onto Hawker Hurricanes. These aircraft required escort even without stuff hanging off of them. A P51 Mustang could be encumbered up a point, and still be difficult to intercept. Mustangs and some other aircraft were versatile because they had a gross performance advantage. That advantage could be compromised by bombs or whatever, and the aircraft would still have the advantage.
Maybe we are restricted to a pair of 250lb bombs. We don't need superior turn or climb. We outrun the defenders, who also failed to deploy large amounts of high octane gasoline, which enhances performance at low altitude.I'm not convinced by that claim. What contemporary Luftwaffe interceptors did a Mustang carrying 2 x 500lbs 'still have the advantage' over in either speed, turn, or climb...?
As I understand, not 'routinely' without established air superiority - and not 'routinely' (if that had not been established), without escort against interception. A minor (in terms of raids and numbers deployed) exception would be the FW190 'tip and run raids' of the south east coast of the UK - but which were little more than nuisance operations. Later on, daylight precision Mosquito FB deep raids into occupied territory happened, but again, they were highly planned operations and very much not routine - and when they happened, even then, it was often with some kind of long range escort. If you know otherwise, I'd be interested to where you've picked that up - because in all my years of reading, described fighter bomber missions are usually mid to late war, most seem to describe the importance of coordination with escort fighters.
The entire point of a bombing mission is completely negated if the attacking aircraft has to jettison its bombload in order to survive.
It might be acceptable if you're ripple firing off your RPGs or dropping a couple of 500lb bombs as you turn into bandits on a tactical ground attack mission in 1944/5 (If you're statistically unlucky enough to run into some of the few remaining Luftwaffe fighters on the western front) but its not what any of the terms of the OP refers to: A 1939/40 scenario. Later dedicated Fighter bombers were primarily ground attack and strafing targets of opportunity, launched from forward airfields - and when perfected, using cab-rank style OPs.
Maybe we are restricted to a pair of 250lb bombs. We don't need superior turn or climb. We outrun the defenders, who also failed to deploy large amounts of high octane gasoline, which enhances performance at low altitude.
A what candidate are you offering in 1939/40, as per the terms of this entire thread? Let me remind you the context of what we're supposed to be discussing:Maybe we are restricted to a pair of 250lb bombs. We don't need superior turn or climb. We outrun the defenders, who also failed to deploy large amounts of high octane gasoline, which enhances performance at low altitude.
Yes.Cab rank goes back to 1943 in the Med
Thats actually any interesting thought! At what point did engineers, aerodynamicists and manufacturers start to address the issue of bombs design from the perspective of the drag induced by externally mounted munitions?Speaking of the drag of external bombs, is there a free, or at least cheap, lunch available in more streamlined bombs?
For comparison, a US Mk 82 bomb, taken into service in the 50'ies and still used.
View attachment 855577
To further the above post by SplitRz we can look at a 1943 fighter bomber (service use) that has been held up as example.
A-36 with two 500lb bombs, Gross weight as per load and weight chart in manual. 180 US gals (150 imp) full internal tanks.
1325hp for take-off vs your favorite 1939-40 fighter engine/s ????
232sq ft wing
Now for the interesting part.
Manual says on a sod runway it needs with zero wind, 2400ft (800yds) to lift off and 3200ft (1066yds) to clear 50ft.
However that is at 0 degrees C. Manual says add 10% for every 10 degrees C higher than zero degrees so add 15% for 15 degrees C (59 degrees F)
so 3620 ft (1206yds) just to get off the run way. Adjust further for summer days (or warm spring and fall)
Head winds help but what size were the 1939-40 airfields/runways?
Some lists of the 4 greatest American weapons of WW II some times include the bulldozer
There were reasons why the single engine "bombers" of the 1930s and 1940 used either large wings or small bomb loads (or both). They had to operated out of existing airfields using engines that were limited in power compared to the engines that would be available in 1942-43.
Trying to backdate a late 1942/early 1943 aircraft to 1939 by just saying "use lower powered engine and bit less gas and even two 250lbs bombs" may still leave you with a plane that cannot get out of a standard 1939 airfield except on a windy winter day.
For the A-36 we can go to a pair of 250lb bombs, take out two .50 cal guns and associated ammo and take out about 40 gal US gas and get the plane down to 9000lbs.
Still needs 1900ft (633yds) to get off the run way and and 2600ft (866yds) to get to 50ft at zero wind and zero degrees.
Now take out the 1325hp engine and replace with a 1040hp engine (or 1939-40 Merlin, DB 601, Jumo 211, HS 12Y or 1939 M-105) of your choice.
I brought up Mustangs because when they appeared, their performance exceeded that of the aircraft that had to deal with them. The A36 worked because the Mustang could be encumbered to some extent.A what candidate are you offering in 1939/40, as per the terms of this entire thread? Let me remind you the context of what we're supposed to be discussing: